unsuspend_server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the idempotent behavior ('calling on a non-suspended server has no effect'), clarifies the admin nature of the action, and specifies the API key requirement. While annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, the description provides concrete examples of what 'destructive' means in this context (re-enabling servers).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the action, explaining the effect, and specifying behavioral traits. No wasted words, and the most critical information appears first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the action, prerequisites, and behavioral traits. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given there's no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('unsuspend') on a specific resource ('server'), distinguishes it from the sibling 'suspend_server' tool, and specifies it's an admin action. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('previously suspended server') and mentions the prerequisite ('Requires Application API key'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it with alternatives like 'reinstall_server' for different scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.